The Straw Man Position - Why Justify?

When I discuss the law with people I find they are frequently horrified not only with my apparent lack of fear of police officers, but lack of fear regarding the system in general. They tell me my ideas are dangerous, they are not conductive to a working society, and often attempt to attack me verbally due to their own lack of understanding of my perspective.

The first thing I say now when I speak of these things is to run a disclaimer past their ears, in that I am certainly not advocating people hold these attitudes themselves unless they fully believe in what they are saying and have done the research themselves, I do not give legal advice, I simply comment on my own commercial conduct, nothing herein constitutes as such, just a record of my perspective provided for informational purposes.

Given that, specifically the part of law I look at is the commercial side of law. As many other people have, I have chosen a position of operating within commerce known as the “Strawman position”. This in itself is a lawful position in which we operate as two separate entities.

The first entity is me as a human being, it represents me physically and my inalienable rights within common law, through the human being, represented by my common name Rich, and the family name I identify as my own, Craig (it is quite unusual that I have adopted my mothers clan as my operating family name rather than my fathers, however I can choose to change my family name at any time, which is one of the reasons there is such divergence between my family and surname).

As a human being in law I have unlimited value, and the right to do as I please, providing I do not cause harm and loss, breach the peace or commit fraud in contracts. For my human being to get into trouble I would have to have another human being laying a claim against me.

The second is my commercial entity or “person”, which is represented by my NAME SURNAME in all caps, the name on my birth certificate specified as first name/surname, placed in a box on a contract, or given a title like “MR”. This is a product of a law maxim called Capitis Diminutio Maxima; “As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory.”

Although my human being has inalienable rights and privileges that cannot be usurped in anyway, they can be given up by me. The easiest way to do this is to think I am my PERSON. The PERSON, in stark contrast to the human, does not have lawful rights that are irrevocable; the PERSON only has obligations, benefits and privileges that are granted by the contractual entities to which the PERSON does business, not limited to and including the government of the civil jurisdiction within which it operates (in my case the United Kingdom Corporation and it’s various subsidiaries). The contracts from which this governing body grant benefits, privileges and obligations onto my PERSON are called ACTS.

An ACT starts out as a BILL, which is a commercial tool through which the fictional PERSON can be enacted upon, when a government passes an ACT it becomes a set of obligations, privileges and benefits through which a PERSON can be operated upon.

Through this ACT, the way in which the ACT directly interacts with the PERSON as a contractual entity is through a STATUTORY instrument, this is a contract between the government and the consenting governed.

I have chosen to operate as a human being, occasionally stepping into my PERSON as a 3rd party agent to conduct commerce. The reason for this is very simple. Knowing the law to this degree has given me a choice. The choice in itself is as follows.

1: Learning how to operate in Law as an entity (human) which has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away, forcefully removed, destroyed, eroded or otherwise compromised.

2: Operating as a legally fictitious entity (PERSON) which has no rights, only benefits, obligations and privileges given to it by it’s superiors in a contractual, commercial hierarchy called government.

As these are my commercial affairs one would think the choice would be fairly logical for me to make and obviously I have chosen the rather difficult path of number one, for it is my belief that I am not a piece of stock with no rights that must beg for privileges.

A lot of people don’t actually like the fact that I choose to operate my commercial affairs in this way, and I have been outright told I am “wrong”, “delusional” and my favourite, “full of horseshit and lies”. I have lost friends, nearly lost a housemate and nearly been disciplined in my job (before they found out it was unlawful to do so) simply for stating my interpretation of the law when asked.

This is the part of it I and many other people who use similar means of presenting themselves seem to find difficult. People seem to find it almost offensive that I am confident enough to operate within law to the degree where I present myself commercially.

They ask me how I can justify some of my commercial actions with my debtors (the ones who assume I am the debtor such as loan companies), and I will quite happily inform them of how our fiat based fractional reserve banking system works, and they will then tell me they don’t like being preached at.

I have been told by people who ask me to explain myself, and my justification, that they felt I was preaching at them. My answer regarding that is if you ask a question, I will answer in good faith, if my answer does not fit into your rigid moral code, simply disregard it. You’re an adult, you have free will, were my views so wrong then surely it wouldn’t be an issue for you to simply assume them as such and get on with your lives, I certainly do not wish you to follow me like I’m some form of messiah of commerce. I’m just a human.

It is not my responsibility to justify my commercial operations to people who do not operate with me commercially. Answering a question regarding my commercial operations is entirely optional. As a human being I choose to not operate as my PERSON unless I am conducting a commercial act. I believe that is my responsibility and my right, and it is every other human beings right to decide how to operate themselves within commerce as well.

As a result of this choice I am making, it is my understanding that statutes and acts do not apply to me when I am not acting within commerce. A lot of people start feeling irritated at this point, because taxation and licenses are a good example of things that don’t apply to a Human unless they ask for them and consent to them. They then usually start talking about my obligation to society, which is not something to which I identify. My reasons for not wishing to participate in this society are numerous, however the fact that we are in a democracy and I do not wish to have another human re-present me is enough justification as far as I’m concerned.

I take responsibility for my own actions. That’s not to say I hate society, or I wish to disregard it’s people (“go live under a rock and don’t contact us” is a common comment), and it certainly doesn’t mean I do not wish to contribute to it’s people in a positive manner, it simply means that I do not feel I need re-presentation from a nanny government and choose to administrate my own affairs without constantly begging them to regulate me.

As the majority of people who are talking to me about this are not talking to me via their government representatives I am under the impression that they are not being represented by society at that moment but are infact humans who occasionally participate within that society. I do not ask them to reveal to me how they wish to operate with other people within society, if I did I certainly wouldn’t ask them to change how they operated commercially based on my moral code because that would be vastly overstepping my boundaries.

So my statement I make to people wishing to shoot the messenger regarding the way I choose to operate myself and my PERSON in commerce is this: It’s my business, if you disagree with how I work on an operational level, in that you don’t believe what I am doing is lawful then your elected representatives and the people they employ will surely find a way to hold me accountable for my lack of knowledge and misapplication.

If your disagreement is on the moral level, then my only advice is don’t ask, and don’t preach if you don’t like the answer, it is my business, and I owe you not one iota of explanation or justification as to how I conduct my commercial affairs.

If your problems still aren’t covered, then ask if the problem is really with me.

Peace, Love, Empatthy

Rich